No more Scenic Bridge
-
M'sia Stops Construction Of Bridge To Replace Johor Causeway
KUALA LUMPUR, April 12 (Bernama) -- The government has decided to stop the construction of the bridge to replace the Johor Causeway that links Malaysia and Singapore, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced Wednesday.
He said the government had also decided to stop all negotiations pertaining to the bridge. Construction of the bridge, also known as the "scenic bridge" began early this year, to replace half of the Johor Causeway on the Malaysian side.
"The government's decision was made after taking into account the voices and sentiments of the Malaysian people as a whole especially on the supply of sand and air space," he said in a one-paragraph statement.
The construction of the bridge across the Johor Strait to replace the 80-year old Johor Causeway drew objections from Singapore which had sent several protest notes to the Malaysian government.
Malaysia however decided to pursue with the plan to build the bridge in its own area when discussions between the two governments prolonged without reaching any agreement.
--BERNAMA, http://www.bernama.com -
Save the money n develop the states damnit!
-
hmm.. most of our reclaimation works are done right?
-
Now we will not have another tourist attraction -
April 12, 2006 22:10 PM
PM Says Decision On Bridge Due To Legal Implications
PUTRAJAYA, April 12 (Bernama) -- Malaysia decided to stop the construction of the "scenic bridge" meant to replace the Malaysian half of the Johor Causeway because of its legal implications and complications, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Wednesday.
The Prime Minister said the Cabinet deliberated on the project at its weekly meeting today and felt that there would still be legal implications and complications to resolve afterward should Malaysia proceed with the project.
"Problems will arise when we have to cut the causeway, the water pipes and railway track and connected them to the new bridge. The problems will continue," he told Bernama when asked to explain why Malaysia did not just build the bridge in its own territory without negotiating with Singapore.
Speaking at a news conference earlier after visiting the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development here, Abdullah said the Cabinet made the decision to scrap the project after considering the sentiments and wishes of Malaysians who opposed the project being linked by Singapore to the sale of sand to the republic and the use of Malaysia's air space by its military.
"If we proceed with the project, it will upset the people and turn the project into an endless issue," he said.
He said Malaysia was not pressured by Singapore or anybody to make the decision.
"In fact, we made our decision on our own. It is a political decision. Singapore did not even know about our decision. We take into consideration the feelings of the people.
"We can't ignore the feelings of the people because we are the government elected by the people, for the people," he said.
The Prime Minister said the newly built Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) complex would not turn into a "white elephant" as it still could be used with the construction of roads linking the causeway to the complex.
He said new roads would be built to divert traffic to the CIQ complex before heading to the causeway.
The half-bridge or "scenic bridge", estimated to cost RM620 million, was to be built on the Malaysian side of the Tebrau Strait.
The bridge was meant to form part of the RM2.5 billion Integrated Southern Gateway project to turn Johor into a regional logistics centre connected by a network of ports, an airport and highways.
Work began in early 2003 but was halted in February 2004 to enable negotiations to proceed with Singapore to build a straight bridge to replace the 80-year-old causeway.
However, the talks stalled because Singapore set two conditions -- the sale of sand to the republic and the use of Malaysian air space by its air force -- to be agreed to by Malaysia before the republic gave its consent to the bridge plan.
Last January, the government gave the go-ahead to resume work to build the bridge and targeted it for completion in the second quarter of 2009.
The decision drew objections from Singapore.
In his announcement today, Abdullah said the government had stopped all negotiations with Singapore pertaining to the bridge, thus the issue of the sale of sand and the use of Malaysian air space did not arise any more.
He said Malaysia's decision on the bridge would not affect bilateral relations with Singapore, which were normal, but future discussions on outstanding issues between the two countries would not include bridge, sand or air space matters.
One of the outstanding issues is the continued sale of water from Malaysia to the republic.
Abdullah said Malaysia-Singapore relations would continue as they did not depend on the bridge alone, adding that their relationship was not an issue.
He also said the government would compensate about RM100 million to Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd, the bridge contractor, for scrapping the project.-- BERNAMA -
perhaps that 100 million is the key phrase ....
make a bit of noise about building a bridge, sign a contract with some Bumi crony company, drill a few pilings to rattle our cage a little, then scrap the whole thing, and 100 million ringgit gets distributed out from the from the goverment coffers ....
well done ! ....
-
Last than a month ago....publish in a Malaysian paper STAR on Sunday, March 19, 2006
Singapore has one year to make up mind
BY NELSON BENJAMIN AND MARSHA TAN
The Star
The clock has started ticking and Singapore has about a year to join in the building of the “scenic bridge” before works on the Malaysian side of the project pass “the point of no return.”
With works already in progress since Jan 18, the new link is expected to be completed and fully operational by April 2009.
An official familiar with the project said the initial soil testing has begun.
“Once full construction on the bridge takes off in the coming weeks, the bridge will reach the curve within one year and this is the point of no return,” he said, referring to the point where the new link would have to curve to join the existing Causeway if Singapore decided against a full bridge.
Options for the project are a scenic half bridge, a scenic full bridge or a straight bridge.
Asked what would happen if Singapore only made a decision after works had passed the curve, the official said it would be up to the Malaysian Government.
“If the Government wants to go back to the original straight bridge or even allow Singapore to join the scenic bridge project after a year, there will be added cost which can run into millions of ringgit,” he said.
Johor Baru MP Datuk Shahrir Samad urged the Government to discontinue negotiations with Singapore if the republic remained “arrogant.”
“We have already negotiated for two years but during this point we have been threatened,” he said.
The Star reported on Saturday that the 23-month delay in starting the new link to Singapore to replace the Causeway would cost the Government an additional RM70mil by the time it was completed in April 2009.
This sum includes RM50mil to build a temporary access road from the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine complex and the additional amount to cover the rising cost of steel, raw materials and fuel charges incurred by the contractors.
Under the RM1.113bil agreement signed between the Government and Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd for the 1.2km link in May 2003, the cable-stayed bridge – which will reach only halfway across the waterway – was to have been ready at the end of last year.
However, after Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister, he allowed a cooling period from February 2004 to January this year to allow room for negotiations with the republic.
Malaysia is trying to persuade Singapore to build a full bridge jointly.
Negotiations with Singapore were first carried out in Putrajaya in July 2002, followed by four more formal meetings with the latest held in Putrajaya this month.
Source: http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2006/03/singapore-has-one-year-to-make-up-mind.htm -
I find that the Malaysian leaders behave like little kids... like to whine, throw tantrums and do things without having carefully thought through the potential implications.
Dunno what the Malaysians are up to man... glad our politicians aren't as fickle-minded and irrational as their's. -
Glad our politicians stood firm on what we need and what we want. Malaysia has their own agenda. Just listen to what their ministers are saying now, you will have a good laugh.
It is not win or lose, it is great relief. Lets see what's next. -
And less than a fortnight ago...The Star Monday March 27, 2006
Work on scenic bridge still going on, says Najib
KUALA LUMPUR: Construction of the bridge to replace the Johor Causeway will proceed as scheduled although discussion between Malaysia and Singapore on the matter is still ongoing, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“There is no postponement. Construction of the bridge is still proceeding,” the Deputy Prime Minister said after a golf tournament in conjunction with the North Pole Expedition: Pole-to-Pole Mission 2006/ 2007 here yesterday.
Work on the RM620mil scenic bridge on the Malaysian side was going on and it was expected to be completed within 36 months.
Najib said the bridge had not been discussed at last Wednesday's Cabinet meeting.
As to the latest developments on talks between the two countries, Najib said: “We will announce (these) later.”
In Muar, the Johor Umno Youth movement urged the Federal Government to proceed with the construction of the bridge, which had been decided four years ago, to avoid further losses as a result of the delay.
The call was made by the movement's liaison committee at its meeting in Pagoh yesterday.
Johor Umno Youth head Razali Ibrahim said the Government had to spend RM30mil to build a temporary lane for heavy vehicles travelling to Singapore daily due to the construction delay.
“We fear that the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex costing RM1bil which has been completed will become a White Elephant,” he said.
– Bernama
...what an irony. -
can use the aborted building sites as tourist attractionsOriginally posted by NewAge: Now we will not have another tourist attraction -
Maybe they are now thinking of building a underground tunnel to link M'sia and S'pore.
-
after immigration and custom in JB, keep travelling on the left, do not turn into Jalan Ah Fook, look at all the piles in the sea along the way, this is where I usually start my introduction to Malaysia to my foreign visitors.Originally posted by hisoka:can use the aborted building sites as tourist attractions -
half-way tunnel?Originally posted by dave101:Maybe they are now thinking of building a underground tunnel to link M'sia and S'pore. -
Jalan Ah Fook? Is it Jalan Wong Ah Fook, which is right on Jalan Tun Razak?Originally posted by sgdiehard:after immigration and custom in JB, keep travelling on the left, do not turn into Jalan Ah Fook, look at all the piles in the sea along the way, this is where I usually start my introduction to Malaysia to my foreign visitors. -
Originally posted by Gun:
When did the M'sia govt ask for feedback from its people on this issue (exhange of sand & Johor's airspace for S'pore's concurrence to demolish the Causeway)? Esp since both govts agreed NOT TO SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC (read terms & conditions of the talks) prior to any mutual agreement, how come 'news' of this 'exchange' was leaked (to the common people)?
April 12, 2006 22:10 PM
[quote]... the decision to scrap the project after [b]considering the sentiments and wishes of Malaysians who opposed the project being linked by Singapore to the sale of sand to the republic and the use of Malaysia's air space by its military.
"If we proceed with the project, it will upset the people and turn the project into an endless issue," he said.
As I suspected, news of this swap was covertly 'leaked' by non-ther than Syed Hamid himself! It was perhaps, I suspected, an attempt by the M'sian govt to 'cushion' and to preemptive any major uproar on the ground PRIOR to the official announcement (in the event of a breakthrough of the talks). Whereas the hoohah announcement that the M'sian govt has given the green light to the contractor to proceed with the construction was, I suspected, a sort of brinkmanship event that is to 'pressure' Singapore to agree quickly and if the talks fail, it will create the impression to the M'sia people that as it was Singapore's 'stubborness' thaty contibuted to the failed talks...."We can't ignore the feelings of the people because we are the government elected by the people, for the people," he said...
PLEASSEEEE........don't emulate JFK famous speech here! When have you given much talk to ' we can't ignore the feelings of the people' over this issue? Imagine, IF the talks succeeded, whereas Singapore agrees to demolish its halve of its causeway, in exchange for sand and airspace access, you seriously think the M'sian govt will give a DAMN about the 'feelings' of the people'? The M'sian govt will just brush aside, just like they did to the same people who protested at Protonas Tower over the rise in fuel charges, claim that 'We a democratic country where we will listen to the MAJORITY, BUT we'll not be held hostage to a few who held opposite views'.
Therefore, I suspect that given the a) the negative sentiments of the people on the ground (towards the sale of sand & airspace access), b) the cost of the project if carried out unliterally, c) Singapore's reluctance to the replacement of the bridge, & d) legal implications (applicable to the country's int'l image) of any unilteral action finally caused the M'sian govt to capitulate here. TALK ABOUT SHOOTING ONE IN ITS OWN FOOT!
P/s. A crooked-bridge is still called a crooked-bridge, what SCENIC BRIDGE? Please, don't play with the English Language when your language is Behasa M'sia! Scenic brigdge! ha! Imagine getting a frail 90yo greatmother posing on the centrefold of Playboy magazine and calling that THE MOST SEXY AND ALLURING FEMALE ON THE PLANET! -
Out Of The Cage: It turned out to be a bridge too far
15 Apr 2006
Khairy Jamaluddin (Son in law of Msia PM) gave the reasons why Sg din want the bridge. Since they knew the reasons, they shld asked themselves why Sg will agree?
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Saturday/Columns/20060415071252/Article/index_html
GOVERNMENTS the world over will only consider a volte-face in policy as a last option. The one thing that political leaders want to avoid is a U-turn, a track back, a change of mind. The public consequently attaches great value to politicians who stubbornly stick to their guns come what may.
Perhaps hardheadedness is an overrated political virtue. The British economist John Maynard Keynes, who was famous for not holding the same opinion for long, once remarked: "When the facts change, I change my mind."
Similarly, a leader must be bold enough to change his mind if the premise upon which his decision was made has changed.
This is evident in the decision made by the Government not to proceed with a bridge of any kind to replace the Causeway with Singapore after months of political signalling that we would go ahead with a new structure on our territory.
Why the about-turn, especially after some very strong and categorical statements from senior government leaders that work on a curved half-bridge would commence shortly?
We knew the Singapore Government was not keen on a bridge replacing the Causeway. The last thing they want is easier access across the Johor Strait for Singaporeans to spend their money in Malaysia.
They know that a new bridge combined with the new Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) complex would considerably alleviate traffic woes for the 70 million users of the Causeway every year and make the trip up north all the more palatable.
A bridge would have also been a catalyst in promoting Johor as a cargo, logistics and transshipment gateway.
They have also been aware for some months that the Prime Minister has earmarked southern Johor as a new growth centre for services, strategically positioning it as a competitor to Singapore which has natural limits to growth and a richly valued property market.
With this in mind, they could not allow any project — like the bridge — that would accelerate the development of southern Johor. But obviously they couldn’t afford to be so obvious in showing their hand. Instead, they strung us along for the ride, feigning interest and even talking about a "balance of benefits" for both sides.
Of course, SingaporeÂ’s idea of a "balance of benefits" is the scale tipping over on their side. In return for agreeing to co-operate on a straight bridge, they literally asked for our bumi and langit.
They knew their request for sand and airspace was a politically loaded proposition which would be met with tremendous resistance by the Malaysian public.
They knew that in the case of airspace, for instance, there was no "balance of benefits" — Malaysians would regard it as encroachment into our sovereign territory while for Singapore it would be, in the words of their media, merely a "good-to-have convenience... like (a) sheltered walkway".
With SingaporeÂ’s hemming and hawing on the straight bridge, the only conceivable way forward was to build the curved bridge in order to replace the Causeway on our side, provide a sea lane through the Johor Strait and link traffic with the new CIQ complex on Bukit Chagar. And for a few months, that was our default position that precipitated a war of words across the Causeway.
All that, of course, changed with the announcement on Wednesday that there would be no bridge. Many have attributed this to public sentiment — that Malaysians did not want to have to bargain with their territory for the new bridge. Even the Prime Minister said that he listened to the views of the people before making this decision.
That is, of course, true. But public pressure does not fully explain the strategic importance of the decision to abandon the curved bridge. By definition, the curved bridge is a unilateral decision. If there was a bilateral agreement the bridge would be straight.
Any unilateral decision involving another country would have exposed us to a reaction from the other side.
In this case, unilaterally building a bridge, even on our side, would have most probably resulted in Singapore bringing this matter to the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, arguing that it is a demolition of a common facility joining two countries.
While the Foreign Minister is confident that we would have a strong legal case, it would serve to delay construction, with the possibility that the millions of ringgit spent on works would be wasted if there were an unfavourable decision. The unilateral option would have also eventually led to a bilateral face-off because cutting and relocating the pipes that take water from Johor to Singapore would require the latterÂ’s consent.
Imagine building the bridge and not getting an agreement to relocate the pipes. Another potential waste of money.
Finally, apart from the road and pipes that are built onto the Causeway, there is the matter of our railway line. As with the water pipes, a new railway connection requires SingaporeÂ’s agreement.
If we fail to get an agreement with the Singaporeans on a new railway connection, our trains will be forced to stop at Johor Baru.
This could possibly lead to the closure of the Tanjung Pagar railway station and the loss of other Malaysian railway land in Singapore based on the Points of Agreement signed in 1990.
In other words, the unilateral option would have not just exposed us to the possibility of international arbitration, but it would have compromised our national interest and given Singapore leverage over us.
If they can ask for our bumi and langit for a straight bridge, imagine what their demands would have been had we begun spending money on building a curved bridge only to find that their agreement was needed for the water pipes and railway to be connected.
By then, we would not be able to simply walk away from the project by merely compensating the contractor. By then the sunk cost would be considerable, effectively strait-jacketing us in our negotiations with Singapore.
So yes, it was a case of our leaders listening to us. But much more significantly, it was a strategic decision based on careful reconsideration.
It was an about-face because doing otherwise would have meant negotiating from a position of weakness on other outstanding issues.
When dealing with slippery opponents, hardheadedness is the worst strategy. Call their bluff, change your mind, walk away, even float like a butterfly. Now they know itÂ’s game on.
The writer is an investment banker and deputy head of Barisan Nasional Youth. -
how many thread u wanna create for a single topic?